Guest Post: Jihadists and the Nisei soldiers

One Japanese father, when saying goodbye to his son, stressed that showing his loyalty to his country, if necessary through the last full measure of devotion was far more important that his returning safely to his family.

The 442nd Combat Regiment Team was the most decorated unit in World War II. Its motto was “Go for Broke”. The 4,000 Nisei soldiers in April 1943 had to be replaced nearly 2.5 times. In total, about 14,000 men served, earning 9,486 Purple Hearts.

Migrants are a cut above regarding initiative and judgement. They pass many of these traits on to their children. These Japanese Americans, both migrants and native born knew that counter-signalling was required. They had to go out of their way to show their loyalty no matter how unfair any suspicions of disloyalty among Japanese Americans might have been at the time.

I am reminded of that counter-signalling by Japanese Americans during the darkest days of World War II when I read the remarks of Julie Anne Genter and Jeremy Corbyn. Both focused their pleas on the need to be inclusive and understanding why people join violent, radical groups. They and the rest of the Twitter Left had nothing to contribute regarding strategies to deter the next attack and disrupt those that are in the planning stage, but that is not new.

The notion that bad behaviour towards minority communities leads to more recruitment to the terrorists is overrated. There will be a few wind-bags who say harsh things after each terrorist attack, but if they cross the line, they will be dealt with by the police and courts in a democracy governed by the rule of law.

Acrimony towards your community following the latest terrorist attacks has little to do with the level of recruitment to these terrorist groups either now or in the past. As Alan Krueger explains:

One of the conclusions from the work of Laurence Iannaccone—whose paper, “The Market for Martyrs,” is supported by my own research—is that it is very difficult to effect change on the supply side. People who are willing to sacrifice themselves for a cause have diverse motivations. Some are motivated by nationalism, some by religious fanaticism, some by historical grievances, and so on. If we address one motivation and thus reduce one source on the supply side, there remain other motivations that will incite other people to terror.

Malcontents join the jihadists today for the same reasons they joined the Red Brigade, the Japanese Red Army Faction and Baader-Meinhof gang in the 1970s and 1980s.

Plenty of young people were attracted to communism in previous generations as a way ofsticking it to the man. Now as then economic conditions were good as were political freedoms. Italy, Japan and Germany were all at the peak of recoveries from war. Japanese incomes are doubled in the previous decade. Germany and Italy were rich countries. As Alan Krueger explains:

Despite these pronouncements, however, the available evidence is nearly unanimous in rejecting either material deprivation or inadequate education as important causes of support for terrorism or participation in terrorist activities. Such explanations have been embraced almost entirely on faith, not scientific evidence.

Each generation has its defining oppositional identity. Radical Islam is the oppositional identity of choice for today’s angry young men and women. Mind you, they have to buy Islam for dummies to understand what they’re signing up for.

In previous generations, it was communism, weird Christian sects, eco-terrorism, animal liberationist terrorism and a variety of domestic terrorists of the left and right with conspiratorial motivations. Look at the level of diversity of the angry young men and women on the domestic terrorists list of the FBI. One jihadists when interviewed said that 30 years ago he would probably have become a Communist as his vehicle for venting his frustrations.

There is always an ample supply of troubled and angry people so trying to redress their grievances is overrated as Alan Krueger explains:

…it makes sense to focus on the demand side, such as by degrading terrorist organizations’ financial and technical capabilities, and by vigorously protecting and promoting peaceful means of protest, so there is less demand for pursuing grievances through violent means. Policies intended to dampen the flow of people willing to join terrorist organizations, by contrast, strike me as less likely to succeed.

The current appeal of radical Islam rests on what psychologists call personal significance. The quest for personal significance by these angry young men and women is the desire to matter, to be respected, to be somebody in one’s own eyes and in the eyes of others.

A person’s sense of significance may be lost for many reasons, including economic conditions. The anger can grow out of a sense of disparagement and discrimination; it can come from a sense that one’s brethren in faith are being humiliated and disgraced around the world.

Extremist ideologies, be they communism, fascism or extreme religions are effective in such circumstances because it offers a quick-fix to a perceived loss of significance and an assured way to regain it. It accomplishes this by exploiting primordial instincts for aggression, sex and revenge. MI5’s behavioural science unit found that

“far from being religious zealots, a large number of those involved in terrorism do not practise their faith regularly. Many lack religious literacy and could… be regarded as religious novices.” The analysts concluded that “a well-established religious identity actually protects against violent radicalisation”

Most evidence point to moral outrage, disaffection, peer pressure, the search for a new identity, for a sense of belonging and purpose as drivers of radicalisation. Anthropologist Scott Atran pointed out in testimony to the US Senate in March 2010:

“. . . what inspires the most lethal terrorists in the world today is not so much the Quran or religious teachings as a thrilling cause and call to action that promises glory and esteem in the eyes of friends, and through friends, eternal respect and remembrance in the wider world”. He described wannabe jihadists as “bored, underemployed, overqualified and underwhelmed” young men for whom “jihad is an egalitarian, equal-opportunity employer . . . thrilling, glorious and cool”.

Chris Morris, the writer and director of the 2010 black comedy Four Lions – which satirised the ignorance, incompetence and sheer banality of British Muslim jihadists – said “Terrorism is about ideology, but it’s also about berks”.

Kimbo

A person’s sense of significance may be lost for many reasons, including economic conditions. The anger can grow out of a sense of disparagement and discrimination; it can come from a sense that one’s brethren in faith are being humiliated and disgraced around the world.

Extremist ideologies, be they communism, fascism or extreme religions are effective in such circumstances because it offers a quick-fix to a perceived loss of significance and an assured way to regain it. It accomplishes this by exploiting primordial instincts for aggression, sex and revenge. MI5’s behavioural science unit found that

“far from being religious zealots, a large number of those involved in terrorism do not practise their faith regularly. Many lack religious literacy and could… be regarded as religious novices.” The analysts concluded that “a well-established religious identity actually protects against violent radicalisation”

Dead right. Jihadism is lazy cartoonish spirituality and politics, requiring the relatively easy quick-fix of martyrdom blowing up a synagogue or crowded underground – and old people have been able to convince young people to sacrifice their lives for millennia, so it is nothing remarkable – with a quick pay-off of carnal pleasure in the after-life, while avoiding the patience, discipline, and hard-work of every-day life.

Suicide terrorism is not a sign of strength, it is a declaration of inherent weakness.

Most evidence point to moral outrage, disaffection, peer pressure, the search for a new identity, for a sense of belonging and purpose as drivers of radicalisation. Anthropologist Scott Atran pointed out in testimony to the US Senate in March 2010:

“. . . what inspires the most lethal terrorists in the world today is not so much the Quran or religious teachings as a thrilling cause and call to action that promises glory and esteem in the eyes of friends, and through friends, eternal respect and remembrance in the wider world”. He described wannabe jihadists as “bored, underemployed, overqualified and underwhelmed” young men for whom “jihad is an egalitarian, equal-opportunity employer . . . thrilling, glorious and cool”.

Yep. The same thing that motivates losers like Lee Harvey Oswald, Sirhan Sirhan and copycat mass shooters. They are losers, they will always be losers…so this is their one big chance to make a mark on the world, and be remembered…forever.

Odakyu-sen

One factor that helped the nisei Americans was the fact that they were not “real Japanese,” i.e., they were not living in Japan.

Some cultures have more portable identities than others. Japanese culture is not one of them. Once you leave Japan, you lose your “Yamato-damashii” as you become indelibly tainted by the culture of your new home (at least in the eyes of Japanese in Japan). You can never really go back to the way things were, according to custom. This is one of the reasons why you don’t see “Little Tokyos” all over the world (except for that commercial venture in Los Angeles).

Another reason for the 442nd’s passion was the Japanese sense of loyalty to your team (and by extension, your country).

Kimbo

So summarising :

Islam is not primarily a reason, instead it is primarily an excuse for the current wave of jihadism/terrorist attacks against the West. If Islam, even with its history of legitimatised warfare was not there…these guys would likely find another excuse.

And the “so what?”: To address it, ensure you direct your ire and resources against the right target.

Odakyu-sen

This would be a great time for Clint Eastwood to make a file about the 442nd.

It could tackle the issues of:
– How should the State deal with a perceived “enemy” among its citizens?
– The pros and cons of internment
– The loyalty of cultures to their home nation
– The conflict between immigrants and their first-generation born in the new country
– Conflicts between State and minority cultures
– Paths to integration in your new country
– Racial prejudice (among both minorities and majorities)
– Cultural/racial intermarriage
– Raising children in two cultures
– The process of sublimation into a new culture

There would be so much potential for such a film about the 442nd to prompt audiences to compare their actions with that of Muslims (of various sects) in the US today.

tom hunter

A well argued piece with good background research. But a couple of points were missed that are part of the problem.

First, the Alienation. Desperation. Insanity. drumbeat that we saw just the other day from “Pablo” on Kiwipoltico is not going to stop because the Western Left needs that narrative for its own goals: more money for more comprehensive welfare systems, state-created jobs and the enforced construction of what they call a “multicultural” society. The “insanity” part is an inability to understand religious convictions in any context, let alone terrorist acts.

Second, while it may be true that many of the Jihadists are not particularly well read in their religion that is not the case with the imams who tell them what it means and what they need to do to spread the word of Islam. There appear to be thousands of these fire-breathing assholes around the world and nobody seems to know what to do with them, aside from the few who are caught openly inciting violence, or otherwise involved with the crimes. In our Western societies we value freedom of speech and freedom of conscience, which includes religious beliefs. So what do we do with these “leaders”?

tom hunter

Islam is not primarily a reason, instead it is primarily an excuse …

That seems to me to be a distinction without a difference. The implication of the word “excuse” is to trundle down the blind alleys of the Left wing, searching for “fundamental” causes as the likes of Corbyn wish us to do – defined by them of course.

Kimbo

@ tom hunter

Second, while it may be true that many of the Jihadists are not particularly well read in their religion that is not the case with the imams who tell them what it means and what they need to do to spread the word of Islam. There appear to be thousands of these fire-breathing assholes around the world and nobody seems to know what to do with them, aside from the few who are caught openly inciting violence, or otherwise involved with the crimes. In our Western societies we value freedom of speech and freedom of conscience, which includes religious beliefs. So what do we do with these “leaders”?

Use the apparatus of the law that currently exists 0 including international law – to silence them. Like Jihadi John. Religious tolerance does not cover what they say. But realpolitik says you do it carefully so as not to create the perception of martyrs

Kimbo

@ tom hunter

Islam is not primarily a reason, instead it is primarily an excuse …

That seems to me to be a distinction without a difference. The implication of the word “excuse” is to trundle down the blind alleys of the Left wing, searching for “fundamental” causes as the likes of Corbyn wish us to do – defined by them of course.

Really?! Right wingers, in contrast to the left, usually say that poverty is an “excuse for crime, not a “reason”.

tom hunter

Just to open up the “insanity” aspect a bit, there may be another missing factor here that people don’t want to think about, because it goes to the heart of what I wrote the other day about “evil” having largely disappeared from our modern, secular thinking. That factor is discussed in this very good article, surprisingly it’s from the New York Times: The Joy of ISIS:

Oates, in a daffy-seeming way, has put her finger on one of the West’s weaknesses in this conflict: Our widespread inability (concentrated in particular among our leadership class) to imagine or understand what else, beyond the pull of sadism and thuggery, our fellow human beings (including quite a few young, Western-raised people) seem to find intoxicating about the Daesh experiment.

The article does touch on some of the same themes as this KB post, young people who cannot find meaning in their lives in a secular West. But the author, Ross Dothan, contrasts the joy of finding a transcendent purpose in most Western societies, with the joy felt by people flocking to Jihad. He takes a look at a recent NY musical (of course), The Book Of Mormon, showing it’s conventional story of people constrained by a fear of hell and repressive moral code, who then

realize that the real point of religious stories is just to help you be kind and happy and public-spirited, that it doesn’t really matter if they’re true, and the result is liberating, freeing, joyful:

But he also points out that:

Where traditional religious authorities crush the human spirit, the escape into either more liberal forms of faith (the “Book of Mormon” move) or straightforward secular humanism is very naturally felt as a blessed renewal, an ecstatic release. This feeling isn’t something made-up by a few godless liberals: Large parts of our culture lived through it in the 1960s, and people who grow up in particularly suffocating religious atmospheres can still experience it today — which is why the story retains so much power as a Western master narrative, why even men like the “South Park” guys, to whom little is sacred, rely on it to lend a moral arc to their cheerful blasphemies.

So far, so sappy. But he then goes on to point out the following:

as Philip Larkin knew early, the “long slide to happiness, endlessly” that allegedly awaits when you drop the old religious scruples often has something else waiting at the bottom

And so to Daesh:

If ISIS costs, a certain meaning-starved cohort in our world thinks, maybe that just means it’s real.

That cohort is still mercifully small, and unless radical Islam acquires a lot more intellectual cachet it’s likely to remain so. But if the West’s official alternative to ISIS is the full Belgium (basically good food + bureaucracy + euthanasia), if Western society seems like it’s closed most of the paths that human beings have traditionally followed to find transcendence, if Western culture loses the ability to even imagine the joy that comes with full commitment, and not just the remissive joy of sloughing commitments off — well, then we’re going to be supplying at least some recruits to groups like ISIS for a very long to come.

He emphasises that point in his last paragraph

Where the brighter joy of Mormons is invisible, in other words, the dark joy of ISIS will be entirely incomprehensible. That lack of comprehension isn’t Islamic radicalism’s only weapon. But it’s a useful one for the caliphate to have ready to its hand.

Jack5

Jim Rose is right in highlighting the undoubted bravery of the Nisei regiment in the American Army, and it may have been America’s most decorated unit. However, Jim Rose may go too far in saying:

The 442nd Combat Regiment Team was the most decorated unit in World War II.

I think the Russians, Germans, Japanese, British, and veterans of other Allied and Axis nations might challenge that.

We don’t need to look that far for NZ examples of allegiance to a country. Freyberg, Kippenberger, two of the bravest and most distinguished NZ soldiers, and obviously both of German descent. Yet in World War 1, the many civilian Germans in NZ were frequently hounded and humiliated by the local population.

And thanks to Odakyu-Sen at 10.24 for his spelling out possible difference between the allegiance to the United States of Nisei Americans and of followers of the more puritanical forms of Islam.

stephieboy

soundhill1 (729 comments) says:
December 13th, 2015 at 10:29 am

The US does not fund ISIS. All you have is an Apache helicopter allegedly “escorting an ISIS convoy . Also some IDF forces allegedly giving first aid to allegedly ISIS fighters. Oil Tankers shipping oil to Turkey “allegedly belonging to ISIS but in fact belonging to the Kurdish Energy Ministry .

soundhill1

Kimbo

@ Jack5

The 442nd Combat Regiment Team was the most decorated unit in World War II.

I think the Russians, Germans, Japanese, British, and veterans of other Allied and Axis nations might challenge that.

You are undoubtedly right that they may have been referring only to US units. After all, they are the only ones who count as they won the war, didn’t you know? 😉 . Joking aside, I seem to recall someone like Anthony Beevor noting that, beyond dispute, and to the general acknowledgement of all combatants, the (Imperial) Japanese were the most consistently and suicidally brave.

We don’t need to look that far for NZ examples of allegiance to a country. Freyberg, Kippenberger, two of the bravest and most distinguished NZ soldiers, and obviously both of German descent. Yet in World War 1, the many civilian Germans in NZ were frequently hounded and humiliated by the local population.

And the Battenbergs Mountbattens and Saxe-Coburgs and Goths Windsors!

And thanks to Odakyu-Sen at 10.24 for his spelling out possible difference between the allegiance to the United States of Nisei Americans and of followers of the more puritanical forms of Islam.

Yes, all comparisons have some point of difference, or else they would be the same thing and the need for comparison to illustrate would be redundant. Sort of like there are different forms of Islam…including the non-puritanical and non-violent forms.

tom hunter

Right wingers, in contrast to the left, usually say that poverty is an “excuse for crime, not a “reason”.

The difference lies in the fact that “poverty” is not a set of ideas, thus there is no reasoning from it to committing a crime in its name. It may be a factor that motivates people, but you don’t find burglars saying they thieved to advance the idea of poverty. The right-wing response in that case has been that poverty has been over-used and mis-characterised as a reason, especially in our modern world, where the phrase, “relative poverty” has had to be created to continue the narrative.

By contrast, Islam has a set of ideas that certainly can persuade people to commit the crime of murder and other mayhem in order to advance the religion. That makes it a reason. Calling it an excuse is to remove its agency in the souls of men and cause us to wander off into the mindless desert of, Police are still trying to discover a motive ….., seen as recently as the San Bernadine shootings.

stephieboy

Sound hill!, it could be argued that the rise of ISIS could be directly attributed to that uninvited intervention in 2003. Especially so the Bush administration not leaving an infrastructure to rebuild the shattered nation .

That shattered nation left wads of weapons and military and other transport vehicles etc for anybody to help themselves with the power vacuum left behind . Also a great many of ISIS recruits came from the Saddam’s disbanded Iraqi armed forces bitter about the 2003 invasion and loss of jobs .

Kimbo

@ tom hunter

By contrast, Islam has a set of ideas that certainly can persuade people to commit the crime of murder and other mayhem in order to advance the religion. That makes it a reason. Calling it an excuse is to remove its agency in the souls of men and cause us to wander off into the mindless desert of, Police are still trying to discover a motive ….., seen as recently as the San Bernadine shootings.

OK. And from a logical, ‘Cause: A, Effect: B’ explanation in the natural world that makes complete sense. But isn’t the issue, as Jim Rose’s post is arguing, that human nature and motivations are usually much more “messy” and complex? Don’t get me wrong – I’m not (contrary to what same might say) trying to act as an apologist for Muhammad and his mad psychopathic ravings. But people are going to do what they are going to do especially on a matter as complex/not-completely-rational as religion – and the fact the majority of Muslims don’t participate in jihadism and/or terrorism confirms it.

Mind you, as an aside, and seeing you mentioned it, Joseph Smith and the real version of Mormonism that he and his successor, Brigham Young practised, including murder and legalised child abuse:

…are not much different that jihadism, albeit on a lesser time and geographic scale, and practices today. And to be quite clear, polygamy was, according to Smith, and “unchangeable doctrine”, that just happened to be changed in the 1890s after the passing of Smith and Young because the Mormon Prophet of the time said so…in order for Utah to bve granted statehood. same thing with the “second class status” of black people, which I think they only revised in the 1970s. Put it this way: the Mormon fundamentalists, living in their isolated communities and trying to slip under the radar of the law…are doing so because that is what their founder said they must do forever!

BTW, what is it with frontier-religion founders of their political/spiritual sects and polygamy?! Sex and power and religion – always a potent combinatuion!

tom hunter

…. is arguing, that human nature and motivations are usually much more “messy” and complex?

Sure, but ideas such as religion can act as an agent around which such messiness can become coherent and complexities simplified. Knowing that such happened with the Mormons in the 19th century or Christians several hundred years ago, does nothing to help deal with what Islam is doing now in Western countries with these messy and complex people. Saying that “people are going to do what they are going to do”, still leaves us with the question: why Islam and why now?

Because the West had millions of Muslim immigrants over the last century – most from former British colonies such as Pakistan and India – who fitted into our societies as well as any other religious group, we just shrugged our shoulders and assumed that this assimilation would continue. It’s all very well to say that what we’re seeing is more due to the unique cultures of the Middle East than to Islam, but that ignores the fact that this is where Islam started and grew. The Muslims we’ve seen for a hundred years in the West, had already been subjected to Western – specifically British colonial – culture, which had watered down the fierce origins of the faith, preparing them for a life in the West itself.

That’s not what’s happening now, and a big part of the reason is that we’ve lost the cultural confidence to push forward our secular, Western ideas and make judgements about what aspects of other cultures we’re going to accept and which we’re going to reject. It makes the West look and feel vacuous, and into that vacuum step people who do feel culturally confident.

Kimbo

@ tom hunter

…Knowing that such happened with the Mormons in the 19th century or Christians several hundred years ago, does nothing to help deal with what Islam is doing now in Western countries with these messy and complex people…

Um, I’m not being a clever dick, but why pick on “Islam”. Why not (as a Christopher Hitchens would do), assign the cause to…religion.

And just kicking this around a bit more, as folks at your end of the spectrum are won’t to say in relation to the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution (and I make no comment on the rightness or otherwise of that!):

stephieboy

tom hunter, you appear to ignore factors such as rising endemic unemployment and rapid social change such as gay rights and recognising gay marriage , proliferation of internet porn etc, etc . Issues that also irk and befuddle other religionists such as the US Conservative Christian Right . The latter of whom share many things in common with Sharia aspiring to far more conservative traditional values . Also are uneasy about , like their Islamic counterparts ,separation of church and state ,

Harriet

“….Plenty of young people were attracted to communism in previous generations as a way of sticking it to the man….”

ISIS is the coolest gang on the planet to the left right now, and will be protected at all costs by the Marxists and far left in general. Everything for the cause comrade. 😎

“…. People who are willing to sacrifice themselves for a cause have diverse motivations. Some are motivated by nationalism, some by religious fanaticism, some by historical grievances, and so on. If we address one motivation and thus reduce one source on the supply side, there remain other motivations that will incite other people to terror….”

So Islam is far more than a religion, and should then be dealt with as such, FGM, anti-homosexual, anti-women, anti government……. as they are also motivations in Islam currently — the continuance of the status quo; a misogynistic lifestyle.

Well what exactly are the muslim community prepared to do to address these matters – given that it’s their culture and ‘each culture knows best’? Or aren’t these things extreme — and don’t terrify people — like children?
What are acceptable standards now days in civil liberal western society anyway? Full head coverings and child mutilation?

Jack5

One of the Stephieboys at 12.57 linked to a Daily Beast piece likening Christian Conservative views to Sharia law.

However, do the Christian Conservatives go as far as Sharia law? Here are some examples of Sharia law:

According to the Sharia law:

• Theft is punishable by amputation of the right hand.
• Criticizing or denying any part of the Quran is punishable by death.
• Criticizing or denying Muhammad is a prophet is punishable by death.
• Criticizing or denying Allah, the moon god of Islam is punishable by death.
• A Muslim who becomes a non-Muslim is punishable by death.
• A non-Muslim who leads a Muslim away from Islam is punishable by death.
• A non-Muslim man who marries a Muslim woman is punishable by death.
• A man can marry an infant girl and consummate the marriage when she is 9 years old.
• Girls’ clitoris should be cut (per Muhammad’s words in Book 41, Kitab Al-Adab, Hadith 5251).
• A woman can have 1 husband, but a man can have up to 4 wives.
• A man can unilaterally divorce his wife but a woman needs her husband’s consent to divorce.
• A man can beat his wife for insubordination.
• Testimonies of four male witnesses are required to prove rape against a woman.
• A woman who has been raped cannot testify in court against her rapist(s).
• A woman’s testimony in court, allowed only in property cases, carries half the weight of a man’s.
• A female heir inherits half of what a male heir inherits.
• A woman cannot drive a car, as it leads to fitnah (upheaval).
• A woman cannot speak alone to a man who is not her husband or relative.
• Meat to be eaten must come from animals that have been sacrificed to Allah – i.e., be Halal.
• Muslims should engage in Taqiyya and lie to non-Muslims to advance Islam.

This is from a Christian source (link below), so perhaps someone in the Stephieboys team can point out any inaccuracies in these points.

stephieboy

tom hunter, the problem is not Islam but a group of purposeful fanatics who call themselves true warriors of Islam. Otherwise it’s a perpetual forever war and unwinnable war with the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims .

“Is I indicated above Conservative Fundamentalist Christians, including you , have a lot more in common with Sharia than they ( you ) would care to admit !”

First, your use of the term “fundamentalist” is just meaningless. Most conservative evangelical Christians or conservative Catholics are not fundamentalists, if that word even has any real meaning any more, other than as an attack word.

Secondly, no, we really do not have anything in common with Sharia. You might as well say that because Sharia has rules against murder, then Hew Zealand is similar to Sharia because we also have a law against murder.

This is just lazy and simplistic thinking and your own personal bigotry at play again stephie, not a serious response.

Scott

Thanks for your great contributions Tom Hunter. I agree that Islam is the causal factor in terrorism. Isis really do study the Quaran and hadiths and consider themselves the true Muslims.
The Presbyterian Muslim apologist stephieboy just will never get it.
How many Christian terrorists are we worrying about right now?
And Kimbo I find his posts long winded and indulgent and he posts far more than he should IMHO.

Kimbo

@ Jack5

However, do the Christian Conservatives go as far as Sharia law?

No. Not usually. But knowing the psychology of some Christian fundamentalists (and leaving side some of the undoubted differences between Sharia and Biblical law you have rightly highlighted), that is really only due to a lack of opportunity, rather than the absence of disposition.

Calvin, the guy I think had it “most right” in terms of understanding Scripture agreed with the execution of Servetus in Geneva for heresy…even if he thought the means they used (burning at the stake) was excessive. It is not by accident that homosexuals until relatively recently used to be imprisoned/pushed towards suicide in the interests of preserving ‘moral decency’. If they had the chance, some would do it again in the name of Christ. Sinful human nature and the lust for exercising worldly power over others does not change – especially when it deceives others and itself by adopting the garb of religious piety and sanctimony. Don’t believe me? Look at who crucified Jesus. Something worth remembering by those of us who consider ourselves Christian ‘conservatives’ of one sort or another.

tom hunter

Kimbo

Same here. But enough of this “love-in”. Next you know we will be discussing ‘Brokeback Mountain’!

I’m just thinking some more about your statement, “Islam has a set of ideas that certainly can persuade people to commit the crime of murder and other mayhem in order to advance the religion.”

If was to substitute “International Communism” for “Islam”, and “ideology” for “religion”, would what we are facing now be accurately compared to what the West faced from 1917-1989 (leaving aside continuing international bad jokes like North Korea?

If so, is it because of

1. Muslim terrorism

2. inherent ideological Muslim theocracy

3. or both?

…and what does a “victory” over it by the West look like?

And how do you achieve that? I mean, by “hot” or “cold” war, or both? By “cold war”, I mean one of the victory of superior ideas, as your loss of cultural confidence in the West implies.

Scott

Well Tom it’s good that you enjoy Kimbo’s contributions. For myself I find them weak and a tad annoying. I would ignore them as he helpfully suggests but as he is on every thread all day it’s hard to get past them.
But I do notice that he does manage to engage with stephieboy and even Griff on religious issues so he does have some redeeming features I guess.

blazeoflight

A rambling Rose – self-contradictory, shallow, misleading and even untrue in some respects, this post feeds the ignorance of those who, with the red mist of other peoples’ blood glazing their eyes, wish to continue with the very same policies, strategies and tactics that have caused the current problems.

So Rose says that Corbyn had nothing to contribute regarding strategies to deter the next attack and disrupt those that are in the planning stage, but that is not new, yet in the interview clip Rose posted Corbyn sensibly said that people need to be vigilant.

As far as deterrence is concerned, what does Rose suggest? I don’t know, he doesn’t say anything, actually, just criticises those he has a inbuilt prejudice against: not many classical liberals find common cause with anything from left wing, anyway. Rose also ignores the fact that all or most of the perpetrators of the Paris attacks were already on various watchlists. Rose wants deterrence and disruption, as I do, but don’t look to bomb Syria, stick a bomb up the arses of ‘our’ security services!

Anyway, Corbyn lays out a comprehensive strategy not just to react to current events – a mugs game if in isolation from long term strategies designed to suck the oxygen from IS – in this interview:

However, and to close, some people never do let empirical evidence interfere with their bias towards killing non-europeans everywhere, whenever an excuse, no matter how flimsy or simply invented, can be dredged up.

stephieboy

‘ Islamophobia, and other ways to lose a war”,

An excellent article by Scott Hamilton from his blog . It examines the inanity of the failure of employing Iraqi born Warda Jawad as psychologist attached to the defence force. Scott explores how the the US and the West’s continuing failures and problems in Middle East stem from the fact of the failure of GWB in Afghanistan and Iraq utilising a local net work of Afghanis and Iraqis in intelligence gathering Also an understanding of the local cultural and religious terrain .

This lead to a big disconnect between the invasion forces and local population with the forces running” blind.” Some US commanders actual tried to use local intelligence by co opting locals and learning the local languages and dialects . The British used local intelligence gathering to thwart uprisings and rebellion to great effect. But in iraq the general distrust of Iraqis and their religion worked against effective intelligence gathering with the US forces withdrawing into military compounds as the Green Zone ( Little America ) in Baghdad amply demonstrated .

stephieboy

“When asked by a Boston radio host whether he would consider dropping nuclear weapons on ISIS, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump refused to answer the question.

WRKO’s Jeff Kuhner asked Trump about the news that Russian President Vladimir Putin has threatened to nuke ISIS. “Would Donald Trump be open, like Putin, to using nuclear weapons to defeat Islamofascism and to wipe out ISIS?” he asked.
But Trump demurred on the question. “Now, understand what I’m saying; I don’t wanna give you an answer to that…”

SGA

Scott at 4:30 pm

For myself I find them [Kimbo’s contributions] weak and a tad annoying. I would ignore them as he helpfully suggests but as he is on every thread all day it’s hard to get past them.
But I do notice that he does manage to engage with stephieboy and even Griff on religious issues so he does have some redeeming features I guess.

The term Islamaphobia was first used by the Runnymede Trust, a Left Wing and pro-multicultural “think tank” which is a warning bell.

“Paul Jackson, in a critical study of the anti-Islamic English Defence League, argues that the term Islamophobia creates a stereotype where “any criticism of Muslim societies [can be] dismissed …” The term feeds “a language of polarised polemics … to close down discussion on genuine areas of criticism …” Consequently, the term is “losing much [of its] analytical value”.[164] Similarly, Pascal Bruckner calls the term, “a clever invention because it amounts to making Islam a subject that one cannot touch without being accused of racism.

Roger Kimball argues that the word “Islamophobia” is inherently a prohibition or fear of criticizing of radical Islam.[172] According to Pascal Bruckner, the term was invented by Iranian fundamentalists in the late 1970s analogous to “xenophobia” in order to denounce as racism what he feels is legitimate criticism of Islam.[173] The author Sam Harris, while denouncing bigotry, racism, and prejudice against Muslims or Arabs, rejects the term, Islamophobia,[174] as an invented psychological disorder, and states criticizing those Islamic beliefs and practices he believes pose a threat to civil society is not a form of bigotry or racism

In Australia, a Professor of Psychology from the University of Melbourne and a Professor of Sociology from the University of New South Wales have said that the term Islamophobia is used to dismiss opinions people dislike, by invalidating the people who hold those opinions.[177][178] French Prime Minister Manuel Valls said in January 2015 following the Charlie Hebdo shooting “It is very important to make clear to people that Islam has nothing to do with ISIS. There is a prejudice in society about this, but on the other hand, I refuse to use this term ‘Islamophobia,’ because those who use this word are trying to invalidate any criticism at all of Islamist ideology. The charge of ‘Islamophobia’ is used to silence people”.”

stephieboy

Shawn Herles , please address the issues that Scott Hamilton raises in effectively dealing with insurgencies in Iraq etc . I have this feeling that a Republican administration in 2017 will be doomed to repeat the failure of it’s predecessor 2003 -9 .

SPC

The analagy of IS to frontier or cult religion is somewhat apt.

However it has more of the elements of loot and pillage and share out the spoils of a criminal gang (using religion as a front). Thus the appeal to alienated ethnic youth in the West and the Arab underclass of the ME.

Thus two input strands – Iraqi Baath Party resistance to Americans via joining al Qaeda in Iraq and the criminals released from Syrian prisons by Assad (those joining IS for the looting and pillaging rather than the rebels fighting the Assad regime).

The cult religion is more heirarchial – where the elite have the polygamy and fuck the daughters of junior members. That’s more House of Saud/bin Laden.

stephieboy

SPC is good reason why there will continue to be be a huge gulf and disconnect between the West and the Middle East with such an ignorant understanding of the 2003 war and of course a continuing gulf with Islam .

Fentex

With these words…

The notion that bad behaviour towards minority communities leads to more recruitment to the terrorists is overrated

…the author seems to dismiss the idea they later mention…

A person’s sense of significance may be lost for many reasons, including economic conditions. The anger can grow out of a sense of disparagement and discrimination; it can come from a sense that one’s brethren in faith are being humiliated and disgraced around the world.

So what is it they mean to argue that they so blithely dismiss people concerned with what they write about?

tom hunter

Use the apparatus of the law that currently exists 0 including international law – to silence them. Like Jihadi John. Religious tolerance does not cover what they say.

This seems to be the only answer I’ve seen to my question as to what we can do about imams who call for Jihad from within mosques in the West.

But it’s not much of an answer – not that I have one either. Jihadi John was an actual head-hacker, and even in his case it should be noted that there were objections to his being killed under “international law.” What such law could do about imams issuing fatwas against the West, as well as other less direct language I don’t know. With domestic law I hope we’re not talking about “hate” speech and such like. Those are awful laws that are too easily abused and are very much against freedom of speech and conscience.

So what are we left with? The usual laws against inciting violence, assuming you can get evidence of that from within the mosque? It also assumes that it’s clear and direct, rather than being couched in vague religious terms that can be “interpreted”.

tom hunter

… a nebulous loss of the West’s confidence . What it terms of workable and practical solutions is elusive as ever

Regretfully I’ll have to lever off a Stephieboy comment, but here are some suggestions around reinforcing this “nebulous” concept.

First, the next time there’s a Charlie Hebdo incident, every Western media source should fully publicise the offending article or cartoon. Let a million targets bloom. In the wake of the Hebdo shootings there was a rally to support them, but those were just words. The action of almost all Western media was to duck and cover – while also claiming that they did not want to give further offence and inflame the situation.

Cowards. It’s also exactly the opposite of what we should be doing. It encourages and emboldens the Islamists.

Second, our media and academic institutions need to stop playing the victimology game with Islamists. I’m not sure if that’s possible as that approach to almost every human problem is now embedded in our thinking. An example of how deep this goes is that it even extends to the killers themselves, rather than just the fire-breathers. And unfortunately that connects directly with an aspect of Islam that this article points out:

Islam itself is related to Islamism as patriotism is related to nationalism, the former being based on love of something, the latter on hatred of something else. Islamism validates resentment. Its emotional appeal is like that of communism and fascism, but stronger, because it promises heaven to those who commit its violent acts on earth.

Resentment and victimology are made for each other. Again, our approach is actually making things worse at the heart of the matter, which is the appeal of Islamism.

Third, Western politicians and institutions have to go on the offensive in attacking the idea of Islamism, rather than just yammering about military force or counter-terrorism. To that end:

If I was to substitute “International Communism” for “Islam”, and “ideology” for “religion”, would what we are facing now be accurately compared to what the West faced from 1917-1989

That’s exactly right. Here’s an example of what we’re not doing, from the same article:

The website of MI5 still emphasises that, since the Cold War, “we no longer undertake counter-subversion work”. Instead they concentrate on terrorism. Goodness knows, there is a need to head off actual plots, and MI5 should be congratulated for its success, but one reason we won the Cold War was because we understood what, ideologically, we were up against.

Part of the reason for that reluctance is that people are wary of attacking a religion, even when it’s also explicitly a political idea as well. That hesitation has to end across all Western institutions, not just MI5.